Currently viewing the category: "Strategic Planning"

Social Ecology as a Model for Change

On By

I started my social-citizen sector career over 20 years ago in California with freshly printed Masters Degree in Public Health. I graduated about the same time that California passed Proposition 99, a tax on tobacco products that generated over $100 million a year for tobacco control in schools, communities, in counties and at the state level. I found my first professional position in Orange County Health Care Agency helping to launch a multifaceted program to reduce tobacco use across the county. It was nothing short of a thriving sandbox of innovation that allowed us to implement multiple strategies of direct service programs, media messaging, and public policy change. We worked with schools, neighborhoods, community agencies, and even private worksites. In graduate school we called this approach a socio-ecological approach. In the field we called it taking on the tobacco industry. The result of this approach was a sea-change in the health of the public. Smoking among adults was slashed by 35% in less than 10 years and per capita cigarette consumption decreased by 60% (see reference). California became a model for the nation and I was fortunate to have spent over 5 years working in the program not only in Orange County but at the regional and state level as well.

My experience cemented in my practice, the relationship between the system (or ecology) and social change. As illustrated in the figure (see reference), the socio-ecological model is used by academics and theorists to describe the complexity of social change. In short, the model suggests that there are a number of concentric circles of intervention required to create social change. I like this representation of the socio-ecological model because it evokes the imagery of a pebble being dropped in a body of still water creating larger and larger ripples of change.

Starting with the core of the individual, and rippling through social relationships, families, institutions and community, a socio-ecological approach to change ultimately creates a new understanding of community norms and social policy. In my work with nonprofits, philanthropy, and government, I often see organizations excel in one, or perhaps two, circles of the model but rare is the organization that thinks about its programs and services across the entire socio-ecological system.

At the same time, the word performance continues to gain momentum among nonprofits, philanthropy and government agencies. The performance trend is moving at an accelerated speed and suggests that attention will increasingly focus on impact and outcomes across nonprofits, philanthropy, and government organizations. The democratization of data coupled with the proliferation of options to invest philanthropic resources will force the social-citizen sector to become savvy about tying their need for capital to the outcomes that they produce. So theory of change and performance collide. Organizations that can lead from a position of articulating a theory of change that is based on social ecology will be better positioned to approach donors for resources. Rather than asking for funds to “keep the doors open” a nonprofit can approach donors as investors, inviting them to invest in the nonprofits programs and services that will create social impact at the community level.

So the question that emerges is, “how does one think about creating a socio-ecological change?” I believe that there are several strategic domains of action that an agency should explore to build a social systems – social ecology approach.

Create an Audacious Goal: Jim Collins in his infamous books and articles related to the “Good to Great” research, popularized the concept of the Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG). In short a BHAG “is clear and compelling, serves as a unifying focal point of effort, and acts as a catalyst for team spirit. It has a clear finish line, so the organization can know when it has achieved the goal; people like to shoot for finish lines. A BHAG engages people – it reaches out and grabs them. It is tangible, energizing, highly focused. People get it right away; it takes little or no explanation.” (see reference) The social-citizen sector is in desperate need of nonprofit leading willing to embrace BHAGs and, I believe that it is only when an agency embraces a BHAG does a social systems – social ecology approach become compelling.

Create a Clear Social Impact Model: Elsewhere I have fully described several approaches to developing a social impact model (here, here, & here). In this post it is important to simply reiterate that an intentional model of social impact is one of the core organizing documents for every nonprofit. Whether you use a logic model, social impact framework, pathway model or some hybrid approach, any external funding agency, donor, or social investor should be able to see your model of impact.

Create a Network: When considering the concentric circles of the socio-ecological model it can be intimidating, if not overwhelming to think about. I have had nonprofit leaders say, “there is no way our agency can embrace such an ambitious change agenda.” My response is to agree with the premise that socio-ecological change is beyond the reach of many individual agencies but that organizations as a network have tremendous power. In fact, creating a socio-ecological network holds tremendous potential to address compelling community needs. When a network of agencies are committed to the core processes of communication, coordination, and collaboration the network effects magnify individual contributions of the network members.

Create Accountability: With a goal, model, and network in place, the next strategic domain to consider is describing how the agency will be accountable to the goal. The three standard measures are process (did we deliver what we said we would deliver?), quality (how well did we deliver what we said we would deliver?) and outcome (did what we deliver make a difference?). Evaluation, is essential to s socio-ecological approach because without evaluation, there can be no confidence in the program impact. Stories and anecdotes are increasingly ineffective in justifying the support for social-citizen sector programs. Evidence matters.

Communicate the Results: Finally, completing an organizational focus on the social ecology, it is important to build effective methods to help others understand what you are doing. Communications planning should begin early and continue as an ongoing story. The better the community understands how your mission, vision, programs, services and outcomes connect with a systemic model of change, the more successful you will be in building lasting support for your organization.

Placing these action areas together, the contours of a strategic process become clearer. Without a robust and organizing theory of change, many nonprofits string together related programs and services as opportunities emerge. While in the past, a patchwork strategy may have served the social-citizen sector, such a strategy is less sustainable and durable in today’s increasingly performance-based context. By focusing myopically on a the social ecology and systems-change, nonprofits have the opportunity to strengthen its internal mission, vision, programs and services as well as strengthen the community that supports it.

As always, your comments are welcome.

References
California Tobacco ControlUpdate 2009
Image Adapted from: Centre for Addictions Research of BC
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building Your Company’s Vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 65-77.


Maximizing the Limits of a Strategic Planning Retreat

On By

As a facilitator who specializes in nonprofit organizational development and strategic planning, a typical call that I might receive is from an agency in the planning phase of a board and/or staff retreat.  Frequently the goal of the retreat is framed as a day of strategic planning or visioning.  When talking to such potential clients, one of my standard discussion points relates to the “limitations of a day.”  In this post I want to discuss the limitations of a day long retreat and, in the context of strategic planning, discuss how to maximize the use of a planning retreat in spite of the limitations.

At the most basic level, any lengthy group process has built in ergonomic and logistical limitations.  In scheduling a day long retreat, my first advice to clients is to recognize that in a typical 8:30-4:30 retreat schedule, you lose productivity during the first, last and middle hours (in addition to losing a bit more time on the edges of scheduled breaks). In addition, participants coming late, leaving early, as well as texting, phone calls, and checking online for sports scores, also contribute to lower productivity.  I often half-jokingly suggest that good coffee at the beginning of the meeting, good food in the middle, and wine & cheese at the end of the meeting can help manage the lower productivity barrier but the reality is that people need down time during a day long process.  Sitting, thinking and being fully engaged in process, has physiological limitations.  With that said, my personal rule of thumb is that there are typically only 5-6 strategic hours during a day-long retreat.  That doesn’t imply that the less productive time can’t be used meaningfully but simply recognizes that there are limitations to the density of thinking that can be extracted out of meeting participants.

A 5-6 strategic hour planning frame of reference drives the content limitations. It is important to think about what can and cannot be realistically achieved in a 5-6 hour window.  More than once, I have had potential clients hope to complete an entire strategic planning process in a one-day retreat.  Unfortunately, a thoughtful strategic plan requires more than 5-6 hours.  For an organization with a strong strategic plan, it may be realistic to create an operational plan for the next year’s activities in a single day but it is not possible to thoughtfully create a strategic plan in the time span of 5-6 hours.  However, at the risk of sounding like a mere curmudgeon, I would like to shift the conversation to what can be achieved in a day long strategic planning process –as I do believe a dedicated day of strategic planning is critical to a strategic planning process.

In short, I believe the positive use of a strategic planning retreat is to link it with the most appropriate stage of the strategic planning process (see here). Without belaboring the point, strategic planning involves anywhere from 4-8 (or 10) steps depending on the model that being followed.  In essence these steps are organized around the stages of: planning, assessing, designing, and launching the plan.  Any of these primary stages can serve as a rich context for a day long strategic planning retreat.

Planning Retreat:  For an organization just embarking on the strategic planning process,  a day long retreat can be used to create a the plan process, build energy for the process, and begin to dream dreams and build a vision.  One approach to a retreat with a planning focus would be to help the staff to think about the positive aspirations and celebrate where they have come using tools like appreciative inquiry  or open space facilitation.

Assessing Retreat:  During a day long retreat organized around assessment it is the opportunity to engage board members and/or staff in assessing the the strategic planning context.  Such a retreat might be organized around reviewing and synthesizing previously gathered data or could be a structured  scenario planning or future search exercise (more here) or a SWOT or SOAR analysis (more here).  The goal of an “assessing retreat” is to create a meaningful understanding of the internal and external environment to inform the strategic plan direction, goals and activities.

Designing Retreat:  A designing retreat is the midpoint of a strategic planning process where assessments are completed and draft goals and strategies may have been developed.  Such a retreat is the opportunity to engage board, staff and/or stakeholders  is the critical work of synthesizing and narrowing ideas into a concrete strategy.  A designing retreat might be organized around  using visual tools (more here) to structure models such as as a a social impact , logic model (more here) or it may be an action planning retreat where teams translate assessment findings intro broad plans -that can be refined following the retreat.

Launch Retreat:  As artists and musicians celebrate milestones (such as the production of a CD or the opening of an art show) by hosting launch parties,  nonprofit agencies would also do well to consider staging a day long retreat at the end of a strategic planning process as a “launch retreat.”  Such a retreat can help orient and focus the organizations board and staff around the new plan and help build momentum for the work ahead.  A launch retreat is an opportunity to breath life into the words on paper.  It offers an environment to both celebrate and motivate.

This list of possibilities is not exhaustive but it makes the point. When considering the use of a facilitator for a strategic planning retreat, be wary of the ones who can promise strategic planning in a day.  While it it possible to run through the steps of a strategic plan in a day, meaningful strategy is the product of a process that requires the thoughtful engagement of a team over time.  There are clear limitations associated with convening a group for a day long strategic planning retreat.  A competent facilitator will help an agency think through the entire strategic planning process and make recommendations that maximize the use of a strategic planning retreat in the context of the overall planning framework.

If we can help you with strategic planning, don’t hesitate to contact us.

Facilitating for Sustainability: Thinking Beyond Fundraising

On By

In my consulting business I get calls from people who say, “I found your name through a search for fundraising consultants. Could you tell me your experience with managing a special event, capital campaign, or ________ (fill in the blank).”  At which time I get to distinguish the concept of sustainability planning from the concept of fundraising planning.   With such potential clients, I try to cut to the chase, saying something like “If you are looking for someone to help you tactically pull off a silent auction or help you move 100 “prospects” up the ladder of engagement, let me refer you to one or two of my colleagues.  However, if you are looking for someone to help you think more deeply about organizational sustainability and resource development planning, then let’s talk a little more.”  While I have written a few other posts on this topic, specifically here, here, and arguably here, in this post I want to help nonprofits to think beyond fundraising and to consider sustainability planning as a potentially more powerful management tool.

As we get started, I want to be up front and provide my working definition of sustainability.  “Sustainability is the systemic and systematic development of program and agency capacity that produces measurable outcomes, successfully navigates change, and demonstrates rational growth over time.” Sustainability planning therefore is based on four cornerstone concepts:

Systemic and Systematic Development: Sustainability planning is inherently based on a systems view of the nonprofit agency and the local “ecosystem” in which the agency operates.  Most effective when intentional and thematic, sustainability planning must address the development of the whole organizational ecology. In other words, the external ecology (i.e., local economy, grant-maker funding patterns, the political landscape) and the internal ecology (i.e., employee compensation, technology infrastructure and marketing/communications) directly effect an agency’s ability to design strategies that ensure financial resources needed for program success.

Measurable Outcomes: A basic premise of sustainability is that the agency and its programs must produce outcomes that are documented, quantifiable, and worth continuing.  Social impact matters and impact alone is the basis for sustainability.  If an agency can’t measure and demonstrate the worth of its programs and services, then it is directly or indirectly violating the trust of these investing in your programs and services.

Navigating Change:  The pace of change in this new economic “normal” demands that nonprofit agencies’ have the agility to navigate change both in response to and in anticipation of the ongoing and rapid realignment of community resources.  “Demand is up and revenues are stretched taunt” will remain the dominate reality for some time to come. Flexibility and adaptation build on the foundation of strategy is a critical component of sustainability.  Rather than “locking down” a static revenue development strategy, an organization needs to strategically understand  its larger funding model and, within that model, invest in rapid cycle testing (external link) of new resource development strategies.

Demonstrating Rational Growth: Sustainability is only tenable when the pace of growth can be assimilated by the organization.  Growing too fast or conversely too slow can be detrimental to the health of a nonprofit.  Finding a growth pattern that can be managed in the context and culture of the organization is also important to sustainability.

In other words,  these four principles that define sustainability move an agency beyond mapping out fundraising activities for the coming year. Sustainability planning is the larger strategic conversation that considers not only revenue projections but also the underlying framework and strategy for maintaining and managing organizational growth.    Unfortunately many nonprofit organizations uncouple organizational strategic planning and fundraising planning –facilitating a separate process for each.  However, it is increasingly less tenable to think about revenues apart from strategy.  Nonprofit leaders must excel at systems thinking and integration.  This challenges the traditional thinking that there are three separate but related processes: strategic planning, operational planning and fundraising calendar development.  Strategic, operational and fundraising planning need to fuse into a single hybrid planning process.  This process sets a clear vision that is supported by integrated outcome driven strategies for program and service delivery; capacity development; and revenue development (fundraising).  Such a plan must be intentional about opportunity management and create the necessary degrees of freedom required for adapting to the changing economic and programmatic landscape.

In the context of sustainability planning, the facilitation and process leadership that is required is led by a strategy focus and is supported and complemented by tactical fundraising skills. Planning for events, building donor databases, and writing grants are important  fundraising strategies but fundraising strategies should not be confused with sustainability planning.  Rather than such formula-driven metrics as donor conversion or event “return on investment,” a facilitation process for sustainability planning is strategy driven and anchored to the longterm success of the agency. Forward thinking nonprofit agencies are increasingly investing their limited time and resources thinking beyond fundraising to models of sustainability.

Using a Strategic Plan for Capacity Development

On By

.

This post is one of a continuing series on strategic planning and is based on my work facilitating strategic planning with nonprofit agencies. In strategic planning one of my initial conversations with an agency executive director will invariably include a discussion about the use of the strategic plan following its development.  The savvy executive director will describe the concrete ways in which the plan will be used to support agency governance.  S/he will describe the use of performance measures connected to the plan goals and strategies and the specific tools that help the board and staff manage their progress on implementing the plan.  More common however, the the executive director that laments how the exercise of strategic planning rarely impacts the agency in a deep and substantive way.  In this scenario, I am often asked, “how can this strategic planning process be different?”  In this post, I wanted to review the fundamentals of how use the process of strategic planning to increase organizational capacity.

.

The obvious direct impact of strategic planning is the written strategy that is created.  At its most basic level in creation of a strategic plan is the DNA of capacity development.  Done well, a strategic plan offers a roadmap for the growth and  development of an organization. With intentional effort to keep the plan present and alive using simple performance monitoring tools, (like a dashboard or scorecard) an agency directly benefits from its investment in strategic planning.  However, I believe the face value of a strategic plan is only the beginning of the use of a strategic plan. Some other layers of using strategic planning to build capacity include the following:

.

Board, Staff and Stakeholder Development: While textbook strategic planning can be a very pedestrian process of assessing the current internal and external environment, developing priorities and strategies, and writing a document, I believe the potential of strategic planning is to use the process to develop the energy, passion, skills and knowledge of board, staff and stakeholders.   Strategic planning is about engagement and focus of people and not just about data.  In planning a strategic planning effort, one of the framing questions should be “at the end of this process, how will out staff, board and stakeholders be different?” If this question is pursued intentionally then strategic planning offers and agency to develop the understanding, passion, and commitment of board, staff and stakeholders.  In this context, the planning process can and should include empowerment and learning community approaches. Indeed, a strategic planning process is successful to the degree that it creates a deeper understanding of the role and function of the agency in solving compelling social needs.

.

Strategic Dialogue:  Having facilitated the development of numerous strategic plans, I find some of the greatest energy in the process comes as I work with an organization to gather “outside” perspectives.  While not commonly done, I am a strong believer that  organizations benefit from seeking advice and perspective from outside of the agency.  Insights coming from other agencies working on the same issue, from funders, donors, community partners and even agency clients, yield not only valuable strategic planning insights but often begins the process of dialogue.  Once the strategic plan is developed, I encourage agencies to continue the conversation with their funders, donors, community partners, and clients by sharing the strategic directions of the plan.  Some agencies bristle at the concept of sharing such sensitive, internal knowledge and reference the for profit sector’s contention that strategy is proprietary and needs to be guarded. I would counter that being transparent about strategy is actually strategic in the social sector.  Sharing knowledge about strategy makes explicit the position, direction and focus of an agency and can be used to define a larger community or regional agenda.  Engaging in such a dialogue with partners, funders, donors, clients and the community at large fosters collaboration and increases the potential of creating a network of strategies that can improve the collective social impact of all stakeholders.

.

Field Building: Paired with the concept of strategic dialogue, a third use of a strategic plan is that it holds the potential to improve the field of practice.  Strategic Planning offers a unique and compressed exercise in evaluation, innovation and system design.  When strategic planning is resourced, well-designed and not simply a rote exercise it is a laboratory experience that has both internal and external dimensions.  Too often a strategic planning process is myopically inward content with asking the question, “how do we succeed in fulfilling our mission?”  While there is no denying that strategic planning is designed to create an organizational future, strategic planning also influences the collective future of the field of practice in which the agency operates.  In addition to how does the organizational “we” succeed there is also a dimension of how does the collective “we” succeed.  One outcome of strategic planning could be the free sharing of lessons learned.  By giving away your knowledge, you enable the the social sector to collectively enhance the knowledge base and field of practice.

.

Taken together, strategic planning becomes a layered process of developing capacity.  Clearly and unequivocally the foundation of strategic planning is the creation of an organizational pathway to the future.  However, if layers of “human capital” development, strategic dialogue, and field building are added to the foundation of strategy, a strategic plan becomes a powerful tool to expand agency capacity. Facilitating a strategic planning process is more than following one of any number of strategic planning textbooks.  Strategic planning is large, shaping and capacity-building and it is the responsibility of facilitators to “bring life” to a strategic planning process.  I believe, it is only through this larger lens of capacity development do nonprofits build meaningful strategic plans.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

Facilitating a SWOT Analysis

On By

The role of assessing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT ) in nonprofit strategic planning is often misunderstood and misused. At the most extreme a SWOT analysis is confused with the strategic planning process with an organization believing that a SWOT is the sum total of strategic planning. More common is that a team creates a SWOT matrix, (completing the four quadrants), and then are not sure what to do next or the team gets “stuck” processing results. Often the difficulty of processing a SWOT analysis arises around either a team a)  perseverating over the negative screens of weaknesses and threats or b) putting the SWOT variables in a matrix and then not being sure how to integrate the various “quadrants” of the matrix into a whole. In this post I want to outline a facilitation process designed to assist teams work through a SWOT analysis.

Acknowledge but don’t feed the Weaknesses and Threats: In my experience, one risk of a SWOT analysis is that a team that is processing weaknesses and threats can inadvertently pull the conversation down towards pessimism and defensiveness. The resulting strategies from such conversations can focus on “defending the gains” rather then “expanding opportunities.” One way to avoid “planning from deficits” is to rethink the framework. Elsewhere I have written about appreciative inquiry as a facilitation process and I have often used a related framework of Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results (SOAR) as an alternative to a SWOT. A good contrast between SWOT and SOAR can be found here – (external link).

However, if a team is committed to a SWOT analysis, it is critical that there is a shared understanding of the purpose in looking the variables, especially, the Weaknesses and Threats. The assessment of weaknesses is the chance to a team to identify and reflect on internal operations and capacity that are the “rate limiters” in moving forward. The assessment of threats is looking at the external environment that could negatively effect the organizations success. Often, the threatening forces that can impact and agency but might be beyond the control of the organization. Combined, the purpose of looking at weaknesses and threats is to give an organization a realistic understanding context in which they are operating. However, strategic plans should rarely be developed in relationship to weaknesses and threats.

My bias has been a source of many conversations with clients over the meaning and power of words. In suggesting that weaknesses and threats are not the foundation of strategy, I am not suggesting that an an organization deny the reality of either. Weaknesses and threats exist and need to be accommodated in the planning process, however, in the planning process, they equally  should not be “fed” by giving them inordinate power.  In the end, all strategy should reflect an understanding of the environment but be focused and be framed in the context of the opportunities ahead.

Collapse the Quadrants: It is my belief that a SWOT analysis is most useful to a team as a broad surveillance tool rather than a planning tool. A completed SWOT matrix allows a team to view the scope of possibilities. As weaknesses and threats are identified a team should then turn them upside-down. Weaknesses and threats are the flip side of opportunities and should be viewed as such. In other words, as a SWOT analysis is completed, the traditional four quadrants of the SWOT matrix should be collapsed into opportunities. If a team is clear on this point, then it will prevent them from getting lost in simply “defending gains” rather than engaging in strategic planning. Again, Strategic planning occurs when a team distills the SWOT data into opportunities. So, for example, the threat of “pending budget cuts” becomes the opportunity of thinking differently about revenue diversification or the opportunity to advocate for policy change around funding. A facilitator working with a team on a SWOT analysis should help the team move towards the opportunity quadrant. Again, the purpose if not to ignore weaknesses and threats but to help a team channel the potential and energy into creating aspirational strategies and goals.

Create Scenario Screens: A third way to assist a planning team move through a SWOT analysis is to help the team create “scenario screens.” In short a scenario screen acknowledges that the variables identified in a SWOT are not static and often only partially understood in the planning process. To help a team plan for the changing landscape (incompletely captured in a SWOT) a scenario screen creates a way to teams to measure opportunities in the context of the organizational mission and vision. Others have referred to the scenario screen process as an “opportunity matrix” or “strategy screen.”  A simple web search of any of these concepts will yield a number of relevant example of such tools.

A scenario screen is a way to evaluate and prioritize opportunities. Typically a scenario screen lists criteria that need to be met as an opportunity is assessed. For example, some potential criteria might be that the opportunity is a) compatible with the organizational mission, b) meets one or more strategic priority, c) has a reasonable timeframe, d) has acceptable costs, and e) there is capacity to execute. A scenario screen may also “rank” or “weigh” variables (such as low fit, medium fit, or high fit) to create a a more multidimensional assessment of the opportunity.

Again, while some conflate a SWOT exercise with strategic planning, it is important to recognize that a SWOT analysis is only one tool or exercise in the strategic planning process. However, when facilitating a SWOT exercise as part of the strategic planning process, it is useful to connect the three steps as a process. This facilitation process includes: 1) the broad study and recognition of the SWOT forces internal and external to the organization, 2) the narrower focusing of the conversation around the “unpacked” implicit and explicit strategies and opportunities that emerge from the SWOT, and 3) the creation of scenario screens that help the team manages the shifting dynamics of the SWOT variables, strategies, and opportunities over time.

I believe that strategic planning in the nonprofit setting does not lend itself to the direct application of corporate for-profit strategic planning models. Nonprofit business models are more complex than defending or advancing market share. A SWOT analysis for nonprofits run the twin dangers of either oversimplifying strategy or narrowing strategy into the four unnaturally parsed quadrants. To create a robust strategic plan, facilitating a nonprofit SWOT analysis needs to move beyond the four quadrants and provide an organization with a strategic understanding of the environment, its opportunities, and more importantly the tools to manage the opportunities of the environment over time. Facilitated well, a SWOT exercise can strengthens a nonprofit strategic planning process.

← Previous Entries Next Entries →